4 ms·

I have had a somewhat dystopian idea (on the surface level) that is actually much more humane than our current systems. Why don't we work, via CRISPR or aggres

I have had a somewhat dystopian idea (on the surface level) that is actually much more humane than our current systems. Why don't we work, via CRISPR or aggressive evolution, to get to the point where something like a cow is much closer to a meat worm? Imagine if we could get the brain down to something where it's basically like a mollusk, to remove most of the ethical issues with slaughtering something as sentient as a cow or a pig. Then imagine if we could breed away the legs and such, and get this thing to the point that it's just a long tube of the most tender cuts of meat. Whole worm of ribeye and fillet. And it can just be suspended in a factory, hundreds of meat worms high, with food being pumped in their mouth, and excrement being swept up. Again, sounds insane, but I want my meatworm future.

ralusek 2y ago
I know lots of problems with lab grown meats are that: 1.) they have no immune system and are therefore incredibly finicky when it comes to infection. meat worms can still have an immune system 2.) they don't produce the necessary hormones for growth. meat worms can still produce hormones 3.) hard to get the proteins and fats to grow together. meat worms would absolutely love to be fat
- Panzer04 2y ago
  It sounds like a decent idea. It doesn't really resolve the problems with calories in vs calories out, though (ie. by and large you still need just as much feed). It also might not be cheaper - lots of meat agriculture largely leaves the animals to themselves before slaughter, which this obviously wouldnt be capable of. You're also proposing a fairly massive genetic engineering project to get to that point too - I suspect there are many other problems on the chopping block that would be possible if/when we're capable of making those kinds of changes to organisms. The idea does solve the moral qualms (if we ignore the squickiness of creating an artifical being in a much degraded state from its origin)
keiferski 2y ago
This is a pretty interesting philosophical question, and I think it basically boils down to whether you are fundamentally a positivist or not. Meaning that if we remove the sensory organs of a being (I.e., remove its ability to feel pain) that means it loses any ethical value. If you agree with this viewpoint, then the idea of “beef worms” or “chicken fruit” makes sense. But if you question positivism and think that beings have another form of value that isn’t merely the sum of their sensory impressions, it gets much more complex.
anthonypasq 2y ago
its interesting how i imagine most people have a sort of visceral intuitive repulsion to this concept, but it really is a moral upgrade over the current factory farming situation as far as i can tell.

ralusek 2y ago

I know lots of problems with lab grown meats are that: 1.) they have no immune system and are therefore incredibly finicky when it comes to infection. meat worms can still have an immune system 2.) they don't produce the necessary hormones for growth. meat worms can still produce hormones 3.) hard to get the proteins and fats to grow together. meat worms would absolutely love to be fat

Panzer04 2y ago
It sounds like a decent idea. It doesn't really resolve the problems with calories in vs calories out, though (ie. by and large you still need just as much feed). It also might not be cheaper - lots of meat agriculture largely leaves the animals to themselves before slaughter, which this obviously wouldnt be capable of. You're also proposing a fairly massive genetic engineering project to get to that point too - I suspect there are many other problems on the chopping block that would be possible if/when we're capable of making those kinds of changes to organisms. The idea does solve the moral qualms (if we ignore the squickiness of creating an artifical being in a much degraded state from its origin)

keiferski 2y ago

This is a pretty interesting philosophical question, and I think it basically boils down to whether you are fundamentally a positivist or not. Meaning that if we remove the sensory organs of a being (I.e., remove its ability to feel pain) that means it loses any ethical value. If you agree with this viewpoint, then the idea of “beef worms” or “chicken fruit” makes sense. But if you question positivism and think that beings have another form of value that isn’t merely the sum of their sensory impressions, it gets much more complex.

anthonypasq 2y ago

its interesting how i imagine most people have a sort of visceral intuitive repulsion to this concept, but it really is a moral upgrade over the current factory farming situation as far as i can tell.